Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
As above. Chuck in that he's now shown his leadership qualities too and he feels like one of the most complete cricketers in the game. Absolute gun fielder too. Freddie had that infamous run out in 09 but Stokes is a far superior cricketer. Yes Freddie the bowler was pretty good but never really fully fulfilled his ability with the bat.
Flintoff without doubt.
He was a much better bowler like you said, and just as good with the bat.
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 12 hours, 23 minutes ago
Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Stokes a genuine all rounder? He rarely bowls now. How many overs did he have in the last Test.
He is a better player than Flintoff, but that is because he us able to put in more 20/20 Innings, that are prevalent in the modern game.
He certainly is not a Sobers or Botham.
Because he has almost 200 wickets and over 6000 runs. The only players in the game to have achieved that feat are Sobers and Kallis.
The guy has been England's go to man for years with bat or ball and then with the side in disarray, took up the captaincy when most thought it would ruin him. He's now lead the side to 12 wins in 16 matches squeezing far more out of the players than the previous regime.
Stokes is and will be one of the all time great all rounders to have played the game. He bowled 0 overs in the last test because of his knee. That doesn't stop him being an all rounder. He bowled 29 overs in the first 2 games, Green bowled 30.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 12 hours, 23 minutes ago
Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Stokes a genuine all rounder? He rarely bowls now. How many overs did he have in the last Test.
He is a better player than Flintoff, but that is because he us able to put in more 20/20 Innings, that are prevalent in the modern game.
He certainly is not a Sobers or Botham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
he's clearly carrying an injury, hard to hold that against him!
Sandy no doubt will though
Flintoff is a "what could have been" player. A wasted talent imho.
Personally think he had more of a natural game than Stokesy. But just wasn't committed enough and says so himself. He has a better physique since retiring than he ever did during his playing days.
Stokesy has been playing with injury to his knee and hasn't bowled much. Freddie was a better bowler overall
comment by Emile Death Rowe (TCM) (U8959)
posted 2 hours ago
Because he has almost 200 wickets and over 6000 runs. The only players in the game to have achieved that feat are Sobers and Kallis.
The guy has been England's go to man for years with bat or ball and then with the side in disarray, took up the captaincy when most thought it would ruin him. He's now lead the side to 12 wins in 16 matches squeezing far more out of the players than the previous regime.
Stokes is and will be one of the all time great all rounders to have played the game. He bowled 0 overs in the last test because of his knee. That doesn't stop him being an all rounder. He bowled 29 overs in the first 2 games, Green bowled 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he has played nearly a 100 Test matches so two wickets a match, is hardly that good. Problem is modern English players pad out their stats because they play so many more matches than their predecessors.
Sobers took 235 wickets in 93 matches. Stokes has 197 in 95 matches. Kallis took 292 wickets in 166 matches and he's considered one of the best ever.
Botham was an exceptional bowler but he bowled over 3500 overs. Stokes has bowled just over 1900 so from a bowling strike rate perspective, they are almost equal. 57 for Beefy, 58 for Stokes.
Stokes is a batter who bowls a bit (mostly poorly)
Flintoff was a gun bowler
Don't like the like for like stats with different players from different eras.
Someone playing against teams with viv Richards, Gordon grenige, zaheer Abbas, Javed miandad etc isn't going to have the stats that someone playing against Scotland and Bangladesh will.
Stats never tell the full story, especially with all rounders who largely try to impact the game with innings or wickets in big moments rather than taking stacks of wickets or scoring stacks of runs.
Scotland don't play test matches and Stokes has played against Bangladesh twice. Its not like he's stat padding against them.
To me the best ever all rounder is Jacques Kallis, followed by Sobers.
Then you’ve got the Big 4 from the 80s; Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev & Hadlee in some order. I’d probs have Imran 1st and Dev 2nd out of that bunch.
Those are the great all rounders. Maybe Jadeja or Cam Green will work their way to that elite group.
Stokes is in the group with the likes of Mitch Marsh, Lance Klusenar etc.
comment by #LiquidGenius (U20571)
posted 13 minutes ago
To me the best ever all rounder is Jacques Kallis, followed by Sobers.
Then you’ve got the Big 4 from the 80s; Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev & Hadlee in some order. I’d probs have Imran 1st and Dev 2nd out of that bunch.
Those are the great all rounders. Maybe Jadeja or Cam Green will work their way to that elite group.
Stokes is in the group with the likes of Mitch Marsh, Lance Klusenar etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Marsh was as good as Stokes aussies probably would have won every ashes since 13/14. What are you actually smoking? Also Hadlee is better than Kapil Dev, probably Botham too.
If Marsh was as good as Stokes aussies probably would have won every ashes since 13/14
————————————
They pretty much have lol
Certainly in terms of match wins to losses
Stokes is by fat the better batsman. Flintoff was the better bowler and imo was a better bowler than his stats suggest. Flintoff wasn't that great for that long though.
Just seen this post so I am adding my bit a little late. As a genuine all-rounder, Botham has been England's best. He was dangerous with the bat and often used as a front line bowler. He was a far better attack bowler than either Freddie or Stokes.
In my opinion, Stokes is better than Flintoff, especially with the bat, he's just more consistant and has changed more games. We also have to consider that as a bowler, Stokes does the selfless containment role - the ugly overs in the middle when the pitch is doing little. He's often used as a partnership breaker. He's carrying so many injuries for the fact that he's often selflessly bowled long spells in bad conditions which is not an easy thing to do for any fast bowler. He's also turning into an inspired captain.
I do think though, that Flintoff was a great player who would flourish in the setup England have now. His stats, which are excellent by the way, were largely from a time we played a very restricted form of test cricket until that exciting period we had circa 2005. However, neither he, nor England maintained that.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Stokes or Flintoff?
Page 1 of 1
posted on 10/7/23
Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
posted on 10/7/23
As above. Chuck in that he's now shown his leadership qualities too and he feels like one of the most complete cricketers in the game. Absolute gun fielder too. Freddie had that infamous run out in 09 but Stokes is a far superior cricketer. Yes Freddie the bowler was pretty good but never really fully fulfilled his ability with the bat.
posted on 10/7/23
Flintoff without doubt.
He was a much better bowler like you said, and just as good with the bat.
posted on 11/7/23
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 12 hours, 23 minutes ago
Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Stokes a genuine all rounder? He rarely bowls now. How many overs did he have in the last Test.
He is a better player than Flintoff, but that is because he us able to put in more 20/20 Innings, that are prevalent in the modern game.
He certainly is not a Sobers or Botham.
posted on 11/7/23
Because he has almost 200 wickets and over 6000 runs. The only players in the game to have achieved that feat are Sobers and Kallis.
The guy has been England's go to man for years with bat or ball and then with the side in disarray, took up the captaincy when most thought it would ruin him. He's now lead the side to 12 wins in 16 matches squeezing far more out of the players than the previous regime.
Stokes is and will be one of the all time great all rounders to have played the game. He bowled 0 overs in the last test because of his knee. That doesn't stop him being an all rounder. He bowled 29 overs in the first 2 games, Green bowled 30.
posted on 11/7/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 12 hours, 23 minutes ago
Stokes is the complete all rounder. Freddie had a good patch but never sustainable.
Stokes is joining the conversations with Kallis, Imran, Sobers and Botham etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Stokes a genuine all rounder? He rarely bowls now. How many overs did he have in the last Test.
He is a better player than Flintoff, but that is because he us able to put in more 20/20 Innings, that are prevalent in the modern game.
He certainly is not a Sobers or Botham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
he's clearly carrying an injury, hard to hold that against him!
posted on 11/7/23
Sandy no doubt will though
posted on 11/7/23
Flintoff is a "what could have been" player. A wasted talent imho.
Personally think he had more of a natural game than Stokesy. But just wasn't committed enough and says so himself. He has a better physique since retiring than he ever did during his playing days.
Stokesy has been playing with injury to his knee and hasn't bowled much. Freddie was a better bowler overall
posted on 11/7/23
comment by Emile Death Rowe (TCM) (U8959)
posted 2 hours ago
Because he has almost 200 wickets and over 6000 runs. The only players in the game to have achieved that feat are Sobers and Kallis.
The guy has been England's go to man for years with bat or ball and then with the side in disarray, took up the captaincy when most thought it would ruin him. He's now lead the side to 12 wins in 16 matches squeezing far more out of the players than the previous regime.
Stokes is and will be one of the all time great all rounders to have played the game. He bowled 0 overs in the last test because of his knee. That doesn't stop him being an all rounder. He bowled 29 overs in the first 2 games, Green bowled 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he has played nearly a 100 Test matches so two wickets a match, is hardly that good. Problem is modern English players pad out their stats because they play so many more matches than their predecessors.
posted on 11/7/23
Sobers took 235 wickets in 93 matches. Stokes has 197 in 95 matches. Kallis took 292 wickets in 166 matches and he's considered one of the best ever.
Botham was an exceptional bowler but he bowled over 3500 overs. Stokes has bowled just over 1900 so from a bowling strike rate perspective, they are almost equal. 57 for Beefy, 58 for Stokes.
posted on 11/7/23
Stokes is a batter who bowls a bit (mostly poorly)
posted on 11/7/23
Flintoff was a gun bowler
posted on 11/7/23
Don't like the like for like stats with different players from different eras.
Someone playing against teams with viv Richards, Gordon grenige, zaheer Abbas, Javed miandad etc isn't going to have the stats that someone playing against Scotland and Bangladesh will.
posted on 11/7/23
Stats never tell the full story, especially with all rounders who largely try to impact the game with innings or wickets in big moments rather than taking stacks of wickets or scoring stacks of runs.
Scotland don't play test matches and Stokes has played against Bangladesh twice. Its not like he's stat padding against them.
posted on 11/7/23
To me the best ever all rounder is Jacques Kallis, followed by Sobers.
Then you’ve got the Big 4 from the 80s; Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev & Hadlee in some order. I’d probs have Imran 1st and Dev 2nd out of that bunch.
Those are the great all rounders. Maybe Jadeja or Cam Green will work their way to that elite group.
Stokes is in the group with the likes of Mitch Marsh, Lance Klusenar etc.
posted on 11/7/23
comment by #LiquidGenius (U20571)
posted 13 minutes ago
To me the best ever all rounder is Jacques Kallis, followed by Sobers.
Then you’ve got the Big 4 from the 80s; Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev & Hadlee in some order. I’d probs have Imran 1st and Dev 2nd out of that bunch.
Those are the great all rounders. Maybe Jadeja or Cam Green will work their way to that elite group.
Stokes is in the group with the likes of Mitch Marsh, Lance Klusenar etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Marsh was as good as Stokes aussies probably would have won every ashes since 13/14. What are you actually smoking? Also Hadlee is better than Kapil Dev, probably Botham too.
posted on 11/7/23
If Marsh was as good as Stokes aussies probably would have won every ashes since 13/14
————————————
They pretty much have lol
Certainly in terms of match wins to losses
posted on 13/7/23
Stokes is by fat the better batsman. Flintoff was the better bowler and imo was a better bowler than his stats suggest. Flintoff wasn't that great for that long though.
posted on 21/7/23
Just seen this post so I am adding my bit a little late. As a genuine all-rounder, Botham has been England's best. He was dangerous with the bat and often used as a front line bowler. He was a far better attack bowler than either Freddie or Stokes.
In my opinion, Stokes is better than Flintoff, especially with the bat, he's just more consistant and has changed more games. We also have to consider that as a bowler, Stokes does the selfless containment role - the ugly overs in the middle when the pitch is doing little. He's often used as a partnership breaker. He's carrying so many injuries for the fact that he's often selflessly bowled long spells in bad conditions which is not an easy thing to do for any fast bowler. He's also turning into an inspired captain.
I do think though, that Flintoff was a great player who would flourish in the setup England have now. His stats, which are excellent by the way, were largely from a time we played a very restricted form of test cricket until that exciting period we had circa 2005. However, neither he, nor England maintained that.
Page 1 of 1